Bravo.
On 6/20/11 10:36 AM, "Andy Farnell" <[email protected]> wrote: > >I think the "problem" is really a simpler one. It applies to all >kinds of technological music. It is the understanding that the >audience has of the performance. > >Most people have an idea how a flute or saxophone or guitar works. >They have picked one up and had a go at playing. Indeed, >many are are musicians. Thus it's possible to appreciate a wonderful >virtuoso performance. > >When you see someone adorned with lights and technology >dancing around on a dark stage it's hard to see cause and effect >amidst the visual spectacle. And thus hard to differentiate >man and machine. That was always the thrill of confusion with techno >in the 1990s, with laser beams emanating from the magical DJ with >stacks of synthesisers. It allowed only a select and geeky few to >ruminate on what they had seen, vis a vis performance. For the rest >it was the pure novelty and energy of the sound. It's hard to know >whether you see a talented master or a slave to an electronic whip. >What I crave to see in gestural music is more like Tai Chi, a >dancer who looks like they are at one with the wind, but what I >often see is quite violent and spasmodic, maybe representing a >unspoken relationship to technology. > >One suspects, in the TED clip we saw, very few of the audience >had any idea what was actually happening. The sound was relatively >pedestrian by standards of "progressive synthesis"; acceptably >funky tonalities. Like many situations in modern art, they are >applauding with respect for the effort and totality of the >performance, but also a little bit confused and politely clapping >because they know something terribly clever is going on. Indeed I >think some obfuscation rather than exposition was part of that act. >The ambiguity of man and machine was the lure. > >Put it this way: (and maybe this speaks for my stupidity more >than anything)... I couldn't tell what was happening and it's my >business to know. I design this kind of stuff and only last week >was with a class of masters students of gestural musical interface >design giving their final presentations. Before I could appreciate >their work each needed to explain their mappings and design >criteria. > >It raises the questions (again I suppose); Is the challenge for >these new arts, of manifold form, to "legitimise" the >performer? Should they ever feel they have to? Are they seeking >recognition as performer or technologist? Or is the spectacle >(including sound) enough, whereas the audience enter into some >kind of "artistic contract" to expect and ignore the cloak of >magic ? > >The MSc kids clearly had a different agenda. As masters >of _science_ they are required to explicate mechanism. Although >the T in TED stands for technology their agenda of cultural >fusion and diversity leaves plenty of room for ambiguity, so I >don't think it was supposed to be taken as a demonstration of >anything conceptually fresh so much as slice of fun. Unless I missed >a 20 minute prelude where Ashanti explains why the system is special. > >To me the coolness was apparent in the preparation, and energy. >Other than that, a fit, good looking black guy who can dance and >bang out some beats has an certain je ne sais quoi absent with >a spooky white guy making scary noises. :) That's nothing to do >with Design, or with Technology, that's Entertainment. > >a. > >-- >Andy Farnell <[email protected]> > >_______________________________________________ >[email protected] mailing list >UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management -> >http://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list _______________________________________________ [email protected] mailing list UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management -> http://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list
